alan_fincher

It is highly unlikely that poured concrete would have ever been used as part of the original construction of a boat. If this boat has poured concrete in its bottoms then I would say that invariably makes it at best a bodge, and quite possibly far far worse. I would further stick my neck out and suggest that any of the truly reputable surveyors with expertise in historic boats is unlikely to be prepared to make any statement about the condition of the steel underneath the concrete. This rings major alarm bells to me - I would be running away at this stage!

Not sure what has been mentioned so far, either in terms of description or photo. Here are a few images of ice boats at work which are certainly post British Waterways, (i.e. post 1948),,, TYCHO (which as has been pointed out still retains its ice ram to this day).... The 1947 date in the captioning on this following one must be wrong. It is clearly post Nationalisation, as TYCHO is painted in British Waterways colours. One of the Oxford icebreakers is behind TYCHO. Almost certainly SICKLE (my boat) Sorry for poor state of image - I have extracted several promises of access to an original over the years, but have been let down every time. The livery, (an interpretation of which is what we currently have, dates this picture to no earlier than 1959, I think, Edited to add RENTON RENTON was converted to an ice boat in the same time frame as SEXTANS, SICKLE, THEOPHILsS and TYCHO, but what was added as an ice blade was very much massive than that added to the 4 Middle Northwich boats. It was still in place in the 1970s, and it is my understanding that when torched off it stayed on the boat as ballast. I'm told it can still be found in the hold....

I recently replaced a failed Rule bilge pump with another from the same manufacturer, but very different in appearance. The new one didn't work, which proved to be because the small plastic impeller was not fixed to the motor shaft - the motor turned, the impeller didn't. From my personal experience I would avoid Rule in future.

Like some before me, I am doubtful of some of the history that has been attributed to VIGILANTE. Yarwoods continued building boats into the 1970s, so the suggestion this is a Yarwood build may indeed be correct. However the likelihood that any new builds were specifically for ice breaking seems unlikely to me. British Waterways still had on its books various ice-breakers, and canal traffic had diminished so much by the early 1960s, I doubt they would have justified building more. Our own boat SICKLE that was converted to an ice boat in 1942 had its ice boat conversion removed before the dates mentioned for VIGILANTE, bur remained on the BW maintenance fleet to 2000. Why would they have done that if ice boats were still a requirement. However I support the suggestion that Pete Harrison is the person most likely to be able to give chapter and verse on VIGILANTE's origins. I think I recall that he holds transcripts of W J Yarwoods & Sons build registers. If he does, and VIGILANTE is included, these will give a build date, and maybe o description of intended use.

I have two Yarwoods built narrow boats, and, don't get me wrong, I love them both to bits. However when taking on something that is 88 years old you do need to be a bit realistic about the possible problems that come with something that old!

Arguably a Woolwich boat can be a better bet than a Nothwich. Northwich boats have fewer rivets fastening the side plates to the knees so they are more prone to developing corrosion between the two.

Size? Style? "Traditional" or modern? Some clues would help!

Yes it is a Woolwich not a Northwich. I believe it is for sale, but can't recall seeing advert.

I found this really interesting. I had no idea just how impressive her achievements were as from my limited contact with her she seemed just a very nice and committed historic boater. What a legacy!

Arguably as it is a butty the only historically "correct" engine is no engine!

I'm only repeating what has already been said, I think. But it seems like a "no brainer" to me that if CRT considers a lock closed that they should have placed padlocks on it. If they haven't done so then I don't think a boater can be blamed for attempting to pass through it. I'm also aware that a very small minority of boaters might try to take bolt croppers to it, but I would argue it is indeed extremely rare that this happens.

Alf went on to eventually work as BW maintenance staff. In the pictures I took of our SICKLE in the 1970s it is Alf on the tiller in each case, and my understanding is that he was a regular steerer of SICKLE.

Excellent stuff - thank you for bringing it to our attention. Amongst the many things noted, (the Grand Union is my home patch), were:--- First small plywood boat they pass was a British Waterways "Water Baby" hire boat. The first boat my family owned was one of these - it could even have been that one Strange reference to 8 locks close together - the biggest number is surely the 7 at Stoke Bruerne. House still in situ above the Southern tunnel mouth at Braunston Tunnel. The humongously large gear wheel on motor TARPORLEY - try getting into and out of the back cabin with that in the way! I suppose what surprised me most was the immaculate condition of all the BW, Willow Wren and Samuel Barlows hire boats- if there was an untidy one, then I missed it. The only slightly scruffy boat seemed to be CANADA GOOSE. I'd love it if someone could find more like this, particularly if of this quality.

Our SICKLE, another conversion to a maintenance boat, now has at least its 3rd counter, and possibly even its 4th, (based on available photographic evidence). Not all of a 1930s boat was necessarily built in the 1930s.

My apologies if I am stating the obvious, but, just in case, this boat is 8' 6" wide, so will only be able to access broad canals and rivers. This is hugely restrictive as a huge part of the waterways system, including the only links between North and South of the country, is narrow canals. To access these requires your boat to be no wider than 7' 0".

I'm not sure that is correct. PRM switched some time ago and says "ATF" (Automatic Transmission Fluid) should be used in their manually operated (and smallest) gearboxes, such as the P120. These boxes (unlike the larger hydraulically operated ones) do have a reputation for being quite clunky / noisy. Has it always been as it is now, or has it got this way over time.

It doesn't.

I agree with David. I'm sure there are other ex BW workboats that got this treatment, but I also can't immediately remember which. ***EDIT*** Ex FMC Panther certainly has its front end so treated. I'm not sure about the back end.

The version of the product that is self adhesive is, in my view, barely adequate to support the considerable weight. (Whilst you might think "foam" it is actually pretty dense, particularly when you factor in the "lead-like" layer). I would only use the non adhesive variety, and use very considerable amounts of a suitable glue to attach it. My adhesive of choice was EvoStick.

I think that your £40K budget should enable you to buy a reasonable boat, particularly if you are not to hung up on age, or on detail of the interior. The tricky bit will be weeding out boats priced around that level which are simply worth nowhere near £40K, and to focus on ones where that price is sensible. I suspect the will be more boats in the "not worth it" category than in the "reasonable value" category, so you may have your work cut out. The forum is a mine of useful information, so I would urge you to keep asking questions.

You could call it Yarwoods of Northwich style. And based on our experience, (2 different boats), you are absolutely correct. One is welded, the other riveted, but the creeping rust still seems pretty well unavoidable.

Yes, I am pretty sure you are correct.

Yes - rebuild was by the late Keith Ball, at Industry Narrowboats. I am surprised to be told this was originally a Liverpool Boats shell - to my eye it didn't look much like one.